Thanks, Risker. I think there are a few inaccuracies in there.

* I link to threads on Wikipediocracy to demonstrate what I've
actually said. In some cases, it has been characterized here without
context. I'd prefer everyone just look at the original so that there
are no misconceptions. What other people post there is their own
business. I don't read the personal stuff, in any case, and I very
actively discourage it there.

* I believe I only talked about that one experience on the
#wikipedia-en IRC channel and haven't said anything about any other

* I have told the people on Wikipediocracy countless times that I have
no influence on Lila's profession decisions and that I refuse to get
involved with the WMF at all for the time being. I've told everyone
here, too, for that matter. I specifically said that I don't read the
personal stuff on Wikipediocracy, and that I don't discuss WMF
matters- staff or otherwise- with Lila.

* Every experience that I've discussed here has been my own.

* I don't know what security concerns you are talking about. Could you
elaborate with links?

* It's true. I value my self-respect far more than anyone else's, and
I maintain it by being true to myself and to everyone I deal with. But
I do value the respect of Wikimedians. In the end, I will either earn
it or not by continuing to be true to myself and acting in good faith
in all my dealings.

* Again, Lila's career is her own. If others choose to bring my
actions to her doorstep, it is their call. I've been very clear about
my role with respect to the WMF; basically, there isn't one. And I
would greatly appreciate it if everyone would stop bringing our
private relationship in to this discussion. I've decided that I won't
have anything to do with the WMF in any way. So our private lives are
no longer the community's business.

* I'm quite capable of thinking for myself. I am truly interested in
protecting children and preventing harassment. And I'm particularly
interested in the current state of the policies around these issues as
the leadership of the WMF changes. Old discussions might contain
outdated information. I could go on-wiki to see the current policies,
but I keep having to reply to mails like these that somehow attribute
a bunch of opinions to me that I've never expressed.

I'm still trying to understand what I've done wrong here. I've
basically asked some questions and replied to posts that either were
directly addressed to me (as yours is here), or made extensive
reference to me (as some of the mails calling for my blocking). Let me
ask you a simple question that may help me understand where you are
coming from: do you find the questions themselves personally

Thanks again!

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Risker <> wrote:
> No, Wil. I mean the repeated linking to a Wikipediocracy thread that
> actively denigrates many of the other correspondents on this list; that
> advocates that you use your personal influence to persuade the new ED to
> fire WMF staff; that implies that every WMF-related IRC channel (there are
> dozens, several of which are logged all the time) is littered with
> gratuitous insults and poor behaviour. Your own comments tar every
> Wikimedian and WMF staff member with the same brush.  You appear to have
> accepted wholesale the information provided by people who have had a
> negative experience while discounting the comments of anyone who encourages
> you to try things out for yourself, no pressure.  And you've worked very
> hard to try to force this community to discuss issues that are amongst the
> most highly contentious on any internet community at your convenience and
> with you framing the discussion, discounting any discussions that were had
> before, many of which you could have found for yourself with a rather basic
> google search.
> You knew all along that there was a security concern about the events
> relating to that IRC discussion, and yet you persisted.  You would have
> earned some respect if you had walked away from that, but you chose not to.
> Now, I realise that you don't value the respect of Wikimedians very much.
> But on a day when Lila should be celebrating, she is instead trying to deal
> with the fallout of her life partner creating havoc amongst her staff and
> the volunteers who contribute to the projects for which she will be
> imminently responsible for.  That's sad beyond words.
> Risker
> On 28 May 2014 23:54, Wil Sinclair <> wrote:
>> Ah. You mean the edit that I didn't write, I didn't post to IRC, and
>> I've never actually seen.
>> Got it.
>> ,Wil
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Molly White
>> <> wrote:
>> > Wil Sinclair <wllm@...> writes:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> What???
>> >>
>> >> What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an
>> >> unsafe environment?
>> >
>> > I believe Risker is referring to the post I revision-deleted.
>> >
>> >> Those are some *very* serious charges. I'm really just stunned.
>> >>
>> >> *No wonder people are afraid to post here!*
>> >
>> > I've made my point, and I'm more or less done talking about this on-list,
>> > probably for similar reasons as NYB. Feel free to contact me off-list if
>> you
>> > wish.
>> >
>> > Yours,
>> > Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> >
>> > Unsubscribe:,
>> <>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> Unsubscribe:,
>> <>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> Unsubscribe:, 
> <>

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to